Go to page

Go to page

It's baffling to me that no one actually checked his claims. I just typed in "Jahnu Rajputs" on google and nothing came up. He went as far as to create a hoax Wikipedia page to support his fake identity lol!

Simply put,the concept of unification and such was obscure to Indians until the Industrial era or so. Most of India was agricultural and rural though urban settlements also existed. The India has deep roots of the rural culture. A particular village usually ruled itself with being accountable to a smaller kings,village headmen or religious leaders or an emperor if part of an empire. Also,the chance given was also less. You need some reason to urbanize or some strong community with a strong motivation to do it and hence developed only in some situations. For that matter,even Medieval Europe was fairly rural in culture but governed by a larger emperor or kings.

A fairly unified Empire needs significant urban community to build up. But Indians simply had no motivation for that. If you are an Indian living in the ancient/Medieval Village,why would you want to live your lands,villa/house,cows,respect,religion,etc and go to a place faraway if you are already getting this plenty in your village system? There was of course no electricity,technological and industrial developments then to give you a good opportunity. So thats what is one reason.

Also,the first ingredient in building an empire is invasion and conquest. That's the hard truth. So for a unification of India,you need to have a significantly powerful and stable Invader empire. Don't believe me? See how much the extent of the Roman Empire and the origin point of its founders in distributed in three provinces of Italy. Tuscany,Umbria and Lazio. So for an empire to take shape,you need the ingredient first.

Also,the first ingredient in building an empire is invasion and conquest. That's the hard truth. So for a unification of India,you need to have a significantly powerful and stable Invader empire. Don't believe me? See how much the extent of the Roman Empire and the origin point of its founders in distributed in three provinces of Italy. Tuscany,Umbria and Lazio. So for an empire to take shape,you need the ingredient first.

India had a lot of strong empires throughout history, even before british marathas ruled more than 70 percent of modern india in their peak, although they became decentralized and quite unstable by the end of 18th century.

India had a lot of strong empires throughout history, even before british marathas ruled more than 70 percent of modern india in their peak, although they became decentralized and quite unstable by the end of 18th century.

Maratha Empire was mostly a response that occured due to an Invaders. That's what was the strongest motivation. So that would not qualify to our challenge. Kushans and Indo-Greeks were 'invaders' or immigrants who created large empires. Kushans created a large empire but they were a Nomadic empire mostly. So the administration would still be local town/village. If they did create a settled empire like Rome,India might have looked different. Indo-Greeks were invaded by Scythians and Kushans but if not they were also a good candidate. Mauryas also I think were decentralised mostly like other locally made empires.

Maratha Empire was mostly a response that occured due to an Invaders. That's what was the strongest motivation. So that would not qualify to our challenge. Kushans and Indo-Greeks were 'invaders' or immigrants who created large empires. Kushans created a large empire but they were a Nomadic empire mostly. So the administration would still be local town/village. If they did create a settled empire like Rome,India might have looked different. Indo-Greeks were invaded by Scythians and Kushans but if not they were also a good candidate. Mauryas also I think were decentralised mostly like other locally made empires.

Indic? Not at all! Indic is a sub branch of the Indo-Aryans who themselves in their original form were related to the Tocharians. The mummies have Indus valley DNA as you said. Thats only in part and those are mostly of Western Eurasian in origin. Tocharians are of a different date and may not be related to the Tarim Mummies at all though very less is known of the Pre Buddhist religion of the Tocharians. Also,Indus valley isn't Indic. Indo-Aryans were still at Andronavo then.

Kushans also neither spoke any Indo-Aryan language initially. They first spoke Bactrian,Greek and probably Scythian along with Tocharian. The only Indo-Aryan language documented in the Tarim Basin is Gandhara language which was an administrative language of the Khotan, which was established by the Scythians(Iranian). Gandhara was not an Indication language. Heck,Indic would come only after tens of centuries.

Kushans also neither spoke any Indo-Aryan language initially. They first spoke Bactrian,Greek and probably Scythian along with Tocharian. The only Indo-Aryan language documented in the Tarim Basin is Gandhara language which was an administrative language of the Khotan, which was established by the Scythians(Iranian). Gandhara was not an Indication language. Heck,Indic would come only after tens of centuries.

You are only guessing about the language bit here. Just FYI, Loulan has yielded many copies of Vedic content but none related to Avesta. That should inform us directly that Sanskrit was known much better than Iranic dialects by Tarim Basin people

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.